Public perception of PAP is that it is all controlling and all-encompassing in every aspect of Singapore

I would love to have been surprised that the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has decided to go ahead with charging local activist and social worker, Jolovan Wham with contempt.

However, I am sadly not surprised in the slightest. While I cannot prove that there is any special treatment meted out to individuals who challenge the established power structures in our nation state, statistics do show that those who oppose such power structures do tend to get prosecuted more often than not.

Legally speaking, can Wham's statements be considered contempt?

Wham had alleged that "Malaysia's judges were more independent than Singapore's for cases with political implications". Looking at the legislation that governs contempt of court, it would appear that Wham's statements may fall generally under the umbrella of "scandalising the court".

Reading what defines "contempt of court", it would also appear that virtually anything can be construed as contempt. Yes, it is that widely defined. That is cause for concern because where do we draw the line between fair comment, constructive questioning and discussion with contempt?

One can say that there are other forums for debates on pertinent issues surrounding the judiciary and there is no need for social media outlets to partake in these as it can be deemed so-called "fake news". For instance, such issues can be discussed by our Members of Parliament, safe from prosecution in Parliament where one can invoke Parliamentary Immunity. But in Singapore, where we have an overwhelming number of MPs from the same ruling party, can issues that could constitute contempt be meaningfully discussed in a way that would allay public suspicions?

In this setting of majority party rule, is it really fair to throw the book at Wham? We have no other forum to discuss issues and if we do not have activists to raise potential issues, what do we have?

Secondly, what exactly has Wham said that is so offensive?

He has suggested that Malaysian courts are more independent than Singapore's courts when it comes to cases with political implications. Is this really something that would cause the public to either impute improper motives to or impugn the integrity of the integrity, propriety or impartiality of the court; or would pose a risk that public confidence of justice would be undermined?

I would suggest not because like it or not, public perception of the People's Action Party is that it is all controlling and all-encompassing. Might I suggest that this is also the impression that the PAP would like to give?

After all, this is the reason that has been cited for why Singapore has managed to develop at such a stellar pace – That the trade-off for economic development has been a certain degree of civil liberties. Given that most Singaporeans have always voted PAP should lend credibility to acceptance of that line of thought.

So, it follows that such influence would also spill over to the courts where political issues are concerned and that most Singaporeans do accept this. Where then is the contempt? I do not interpret Wham's statements as critical of the courts. I see it as a comment on the far-reaching control of the PAP. Is that criticism? I suppose it depends on who you ask.

To the PAP – isn’t the acknowledgement of its control a good thing? As said earlier, it is this streamlined control that has allowed Singapore to be so prosperous in such a quick time. Certainly, the government itself has implied this on numerous occasions. Yet, the government remains sensitive to assertions of its control over the state machines.

Which is it? Picking a side might make it easier for people to fall in line.

As for the courts, most people already have the opinion that it toes the line when it comes to political decisions. Whether this perception is right or wrong is another issue. But the supposition that the masses view the PAP as all controlling (including controlling the courts) should surely not be surprising to the courts. In this scenario, do Wham's statements still fall within contempt?

Perhaps the court is trying to correct this public perception of government control. If that is indeed the purpose, then might I suggest that not prosecuting Wham may have a greater impact?

But then, being neither in the judiciary or the government, perhaps my opinion doesn’t count.

This entry was posted in Opinion.

---